Key decisions

Energy development

The benefits of electricity production from a proposed solar farm in Shropshire have been held to outweigh landscape harm.

A proposed solar farm and battery storage facility was permitted by the secretary of state, who overruled an inspector’s conclusion that the proposal would give rise to significant harm to a designated landscape. The 40-hectare site lay within the Wrekin Forest Strategic Landscape, and also within the setting of the Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). 

The council accepted the need for renewable energy provided it was located in the right place. However, it argued that the scheme would significantly impact an intimate landscape with a strong and distinctive character.

The inspector held that significant weight must be given to the electricity production, with the scheme having an installed capacity of 30 megawatts and able to meet the needs of up to 8,657 homes. Further benefits would arise from enhanced biodiversity planting and measures and additional permissive footpath links, which again attracted significant weight, the inspector held. 

However, in the inspector’s view, while the overall thrust of government policy may be in favour of renewable sources, this did not give them primacy over the other demands for the use of the countryside. The site was a designated landscape, he held, and a valued landscape where the proposal would lead to material change, degrading its value as part of that landscape and the experience of those using it. The inspector accepted that mitigation was proposed and that additional measures would enhance some structural aspects of the site. Nonetheless, he concluded these did not make the harm acceptable and that substantial weight arose against the scheme on that basis.

However, the secretary of state held that the site was not a sensitive gateway location, and therefore ruled the scheme would not have a significant adverse effect on the landscape, or that landscape harm should carry substantial weight. Conversely, he held that renewable electricity production carried significant weight, and that its accordance with the development plan meant the scheme should be allowed. 

Inspector: Mike Robins; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-717

Comment: A clutch of cases this month demonstrate the commitment of planners and governments to bringing forward renewable energy schemes. This month’s appeals feature a floating wind farm off the Pembrokeshire Coast, a battery storage facility in London and a solar farm on Anglesey – all allowed. In this case – a solar farm proposed in Shropshire – the secretary of state allowed the proposal even after the inspector had recommended refusal. The disagreement boiled down to the assessment of landscape impact. In his report, the inspector judged that the site was in a “highly sensitive” location – being within a strategic landscape area and within the setting of the Shropshire Hills AONB. In the inspector’s view, the scheme would enclose and truncate views, and alter the character from a rural and remote site to developed urban fringe. While the secretary of state agreed the site was a valued landscape, he disagreed with its assessment as a “highly sensitive” site. He did not agree with the inspector that there was a significant adverse effect on the area's landscape or the amenity value. As a result, he did not accept that the harm was unacceptable. Instead he cited the production of electricity as attracting significant weight in favour of the proposal, and allowed the appeal.

Housing new build 

A proposed greenfield housing scheme in Berkshire has been held not to represent sustainable development.

An inspector dismissed the proposal for 200 homes on greenfield land at the edge of a village. He noted that the council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, so the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development applied. However, he held that the site did not comply with the council’s spatial strategy, which although out of date was broadly consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in terms of its objectives. 

The inspector noted that, as the council’s housing strategy relied on a limited number of large sites, delivery had been ‘lumpy’, but had generally been in excess of requirements and it was not unlikely to return to having an adequate supply. In his view, granting permission for another large site would not resolve the inconsistent supply issue.

There would be harm to the rural setting of the two neighbouring villages, and a higher degree of coalescence between the two, the inspector noted. He also had concerns over the appellants’ approach to biodiversity net gain (BNG). The appellants had proposed to use offsite land that was not under their control and, in the inspector’s view, this meant it was not clear that BNG could be secured.

Regarding transport, the inspector held that options other than private motor vehicles were poor so the location would not be able to support a development of the scale proposed. The neighbouring village had only a limited range of services, and there were gaps in the footways to access them, he held. Although the cycling distance to further services might have been acceptable, the routes were not shown to be acceptable or viable, he judged. The appellants highlighted the opening of an Elizabeth Line station nearby as a reason for the spatial strategy being out of date, but, in the inspector’s view, it was not demonstrated as to why this would be better than the existing rail services which were poorly accessible apart from by car. 

Overall, the inspector concluded that, despite the absence of a five-year housing land supply in the area, the proposal would be unsustainable and therefore did not benefit from the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development. 

Inspector: David Wildsmith; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-678

Comment: Two cases this month offer a reminder that the triggering of the ‘tilted balance’ in favour of sustainable development does not necessarily result in an approval for housing schemes. In this case in Berkshire, the inspector accepted that the council could not demonstrate a deliverable five-year housing supply. However, he maintained that the proposal did not represent sustainable development. In doing so, he noted that the council’s spatial vision in its core strategy set out a clear hierarchy of settlements, dependent on the facilities and services they contain or have access to, by sustainable means of travel. The site was in a village at the bottom of this hierarchy. It was therefore not a sustainable location for a proposal for 200 homes, he ruled. In another case, this time in Gloucestershire (DCS Number: 200-011-714), a proposal for 55 homes at the edge of a village was refused after the inspector found it would represent an “incongruous and urbanising intrusion” into protected woodland, which was subject to a tree preservation order and part of which was planted as part of an environmental initiative to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elisabeth II. Despite the lack of a five-year land supply being demonstrated, the inspector accordingly dismissed the appeal.

Latest cases

Community facilities 

Area character and carbon emissions concerns have scuppered a proposal for a new care home in a Berkshire village.

The proposal was for a four-storey, 70-bed care home in a residential area with one floor set within a basement. It would be broadly T-shaped, with a proportion of the building extending deep into the rear of the appeal site. The proposed building, with its expansive facades and proportions, was found by the inspector to be wholly uncharacteristic in the immediate context and with no resemblance to the immediate surrounds. In his view, it would be a significant structure of irrepressible height and mass.

The council argued that the proposed large basement and accompanying sunken garden area would release an unnecessary quantity of emissions to the detriment of the environment through vehicles transporting the spoil to a disposal site. The appellants confirmed that no specific mitigation was built into the construction process to reduce emissions, with all excavated material destined for off-site landfill. In the inspector’s view, this meant the proposal would conflict with local plan policy seeking to minimise carbon emissions through giving careful consideration to all aspects of development form. 

The inspector accepted that the proposal would provide needed care home provision and an equivalent release of market dwellings to the open market. However, he gave significant weight to the harm caused to the environment from a townscape, landscape and ecology perspective. Overall, he held that the harm caused by the proposal demonstrably outweighed its benefits.

Inspector: David Wallis; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-689

A proposed assisted living scheme in Suffolk has been held not to be subject to a policy restricting residential development in the countryside.

An inspector permitted the 80-unit scheme outside a market town, after ruling that the scheme, falling within the C2 use class, was not caught by the restrictive policy. The inspector recorded that a policy footnote confirmed that ‘residential development’ meant uses falling within use classes C3 and C4. He therefore did not agree with the council that the ordinary meaning of residential development included assisted living within use class C2, in view of the requirement for care packages and communal facilities. He concluded that the proposal was not captured by a closed list of policy restrictions on types of development that should not be permitted in the countryside. He also held that the proposed scale and location of extra care housing outside a market town would not undermine the plan’s overall spatial strategy.

On the other main issue of affordable housing provision, there was consensus between the parties that the scheme could only viably provide a payment in lieu equivalent to 13 per cent and not a policy-compliant 30 per cent. In these circumstances, the policy required wide sustainability benefits arising from the scheme to be demonstrated. In the inspector’s view, a high level of biodiversity net gain, a reduced demand for national health services and freeing-up existing family-sized housing in the area were benefits going beyond the proposal. Overall, he held that the proposal complied with the development plan.

Inspector: Owen Woodwards; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-712

A specific need for dementia care rooms has been held to justify a proposed elderly people’s home in Gloucestershire.

An inspector approved the proposal for the home on the site of an office building in a town, after finding a qualitative and quantitative need for high standard dementia care rooms. The council had argued that there was an existing oversupply of basic care rooms within the local area, supported by evidence of high care home vacancy rates within a two-mile radius. It therefore argued that such a care home in this location would undermine the county council’s care at home first strategy, contrary to development plan policy.

The appellant’s needs assessment acknowledged an overprovision of minimum market standard bedrooms in the borough. However, the inspector accepted it provided evidence of a growing shortfall in rooms offering full wet room facilities and dementia care over a five-mile radius. In the inspector’s view, therefore, there was no conflict with policy in respect of evidence of need. However, she did identify some conflict in terms of location, given the identified oversupply in the local community and lack of support for the appeal scheme from the care commissioning authority.

The inspector noted that housing land supply in the borough stood at only 2.9 years, triggering the National Planning Policy Framework's tilted balance in favour of sustainable development. In this context, she attributed great weight to the provision of specialist housing meeting a local market need, as well as contributing to the release of general needs housing. The inspector noted that the number of people with conditions such as dementia, and whose needs could not effectively be met within the community, was increasing. Overall, she found no adverse effects to outweigh the development's benefits.

Inspector: Sylvia Leonard; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-653

A proposed nesting area within a dockland on Teesside has been held not to have unacceptable impacts on businesses or residents.

An inspector allowed the proposal for a nesting structure for kittiwakes, to be provided as part of an offshore wind farm project, after concluding it would be a suitable location. The appeal site comprised a former yacht club building, car park and areas of grass and scrub on raised coastal headland which formed part of the docks.

The appellants’ Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project for the offshore wind farm was granted consent in December 2020. This included a requirement to compensate for potential collision mortality of kittiwake associated with the Flamborough and Filey Coast Special Protection Area (SPA).

The appellants provided detailed information regarding the behaviour of kittiwakes. The birds were relatively tolerant to disturbance from human activities and could be found at operational ports around the UK including at their existing colonies around the docks, which had been steadily growing over time, it stated. Although the council was concerned about the suitability of the site within a designated area for further employment, the inspector was satisfied, based on other artificial nesting structures provided elsewhere, that it would be acceptable.

In this regard, the inspector concluded there was insufficient evidence that existing businesses would have unreasonable restrictions placed on them, particularly given the existing designations affecting the wider area. The evidence did not suggest the existing and future industrial and port uses would result in complaints from the operators of the artificial nesting facility, she held.

The inspector also concluded the scheme would not have unacceptable impacts on local residents from noise or guano deposition. Further, she held it would not have an unacceptable impact on the area's character and appearance.

Inspector: Susan Hunt; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-039-541

The use of an appeal site as a day nursery has been held to be a materially different use from its existing lawful use as a church.

An application for a lawful development certificate (LDC) confirming that a Surrey day nursery could be used as offices was rejected by an inspector because the day nursery use was now in a different use class to the original use. It was common ground that the original lawful use of the appeal site was as a church. It was subsequently used as a day nursery but at a time when day nurseries and churches were part of one and the same use class, the inspector noted. The premises ceased to be used as a day nursery in 2017, well before the 2020 amendments to the Use Classes Order (UCO), which placed churches and day nurseries in separate use classes. Thus, throughout the period during which the appeal site was used as a day nursery, that use was authorised by the relevant legislation, the inspector held.

Changes to the UCO in September 2020 meant its use as a day nursery could have amounted to a material change of use requiring planning permission. However, no permission was sought or granted. The inspector held that use of the appeal site as a day nursery would have a number of significant differences from its existing lawful use as a church. In her view, the pattern of attendance for a day nursery would generally be weekdays rather than weekends and evenings, and this would be reflected in different quantities and concentrations of vehicle and pedestrian movements. 

Compared to use as a church, the levels of noise and disturbance generated by a day nursery would likely be greater during traditional working hours, as opposed to outside traditional working hours, she held. In her judgment, these differences in character indicated use as a day nursery would have amounted to a material change of the appeal site's use from its existing lawful use as a church. This meant using the appeal site as a day nursery on that date would not have been lawful without a grant of planning permission. No such planning permission was sought or issued and therefore it was not within her remit to grant a LDC when its use as a day nursery was not confirmed, she ruled.

Inspector: Jessica Graham; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-039-584

Energy development

The impact of a proposed floating wind farm off the Pembrokeshire Coast on views from the shore and commercial fishing has been held to be acceptable.

The Welsh ministers issued consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for up to seven floating wind turbines around 35 kilometres south-west of the coast. The applicants stated that the maximum generating capacity would be 100 megawatts. An offshore cable, up to 49 kilometres long, would link the array area to landfall. The turbines would be mounted on semi-submersible floating platforms anchored to the seabed and would have a maximum tip height of 270 metres. 

The inspector noted that the proposal would mean the exclusion of an area of 103 square kilometres of the Celtic Sea from fishing. The proposed development would therefore have an adverse impact on the fishing industry and the businesses it supports, he held. However, the area was not as intensively fished as other parts of the Celtic/Irish Sea, he found, and the area lost would be small compared to the size of fishing grounds available. The proposed development would offer opportunities for servicing the array which would offset some of the lost income, he held, and would create around 1,500 jobs during construction and 146 jobs during the operational phase.

Assessing the proposal's visual impact, the inspector accepted that, on clear days, the turbines would be visible from the Pembrokeshire coast. In his view, therefore, it would have an adverse impact on the seascape and the sense of remoteness and wildness experienced on parts of the coastal path. It was not clear how this impact could be mitigated by landscaping, he held.

However, he found there would be many days when the weather conditions limited visibility to the extent the turbines would not be seen. On better days, the distance of the turbines from the coast would lessen their impact and they would occupy only a limited part of the horizon when viewed from the coast, he held. Overall, he concluded that the impact of the development would not be such that it would undermine the purposes of the National Park designation.

The Welsh Government agreed with these conclusions, and found that the proposal would not have a significant impact on important habitats.

Inspector: Anthony Thickett; Written representations
DCS Number: 200-011-659

Benefits to renewable energy production have been held to justify a proposed battery storage facility in the metropolitan green belt.

The facility was proposed for a site in north-west London and would consist of 20 containers housing battery storage systems, ten transformer stations and other supporting equipment. It would be enclosed by a weldmesh fence and partially by a retaining wall. The inspector noted that the unit's maximum height would be less than four metres and the compound itself would be cut into the landscape, and enclosed by a landscape buffer consisting of native hedging.

The inspector did not accept the council’s claim that the scheme would generate urban sprawl. However, he agreed it would encroach into the countryside and reduce the openness of the green belt. 

The inspector noted that the proposal was required to improve energy storage, storing power from the national grid at times of excess supply and feed this back into the grid at times of high demand. He agreed it was important to accommodate the fluctuating nature of energy generated from renewable sources which was dependent on the time of day and the weather, to support non-renewable sources of energy generation. 

Therefore, while he acknowledged that the proposal itself was not a renewable energy project, he held it would provide enhanced energy resilience. The energy to the proposed facility would be generated by both renewable and non-renewable energy but over time it would provide greater support for renewable energy production, he held. In his view, this lent very significant weight in its favour as it would assist in meeting the government’s net zero targets.

Inspector: Ben Plenty; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-039-537

The benefits of a proposed solar farm on Anglesey have been held to outweigh the loss of good quality farmland. 

Welsh ministers accepted an inspector's recommendation that the need to address climate change and boost electricity generation from renewable sources justified granting consent for the scheme. The site covered an area of 63 hectares and consent was sought for a solar farm with a generating capacity between 30 and 40 megawatts. Accordingly, it fell within the definition of a major infrastructure project which required development consent under section 62D of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 

One of the main issues related to the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural (BMV) land which comprised 46 per cent of the site area. The inspector concluded it had been demonstrated that there was an overriding need for the development and neither previously developed land nor land in lower agricultural grades was available. In addition, she held that only 6.3 hectares of the BMV land in the application site could be farmed and used for the production of food crops. 

The inspector’s report highlighted the contribution the proposal would make to the government’s objectives to decarbonise and to tackle the climate emergency. The ministers agreed with the inspector that there was a need to increase the generation of renewable energy in Wales. 

However, they held that this in itself did not comprise “overriding need” for the purpose of Planning Policy Wales. The “overriding need” in this context required the need for the proposed development to be balanced against the need to protect BMV land, they ruled. Since only a small proportion of the BMV could be farmed, the need to address climate change was sufficient to outweigh its loss, the ministers concluded. 

Inspector: Sian Worden; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-696

Housing new build 

The ability of a proposed housing scheme to fund a replacement school in Essex has been held to outweigh a lack of affordable homes provision.

The site, an existing secondary school, was allocated in a neighbourhood plan for housing and was intended to part fund the development of a new secondary school. The inspector held that a modern high school would improve educational opportunities and attainment in the local area as a result of the standard and quality of proposed accommodation and without the draw on limited capital resources being deployed on a perpetual repairs programme at the existing school site. Moreover, a secure stand-alone school site would provide a safe and protected learning environment, he held. For these educational reasons, he concluded that funding a new high school, a facility which would be free for the local community, would be a substantial public benefit.

A development of 200 dwellings should ordinarily be capable of delivering some 80 affordable units (40 per cent), the inspector noted. In his view, there was no doubt that the district had a pressing need for more affordable housing. However, he concluded overall that the appeal site and the ability of the development to fund the new school would be a genuinely exceptional circumstance and not form part of any wider pattern of qualifying housing proposals not delivering affordable units.

The proposal would also deliver up to 200 new homes in the context of a notable shortfall in the supply of deliverable housing land, the inspector held. In his view, the scale of a development of up to 200 homes would enable a good variety of dwellings to help meet the needs of different groups. This would amount to a social benefit of very significant weight in the context of paragraph 60 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the need to boost the supply of homes, he concluded. 

Additionally, the appeal proposal would enable the implementation of a public footpath and cycleway through the site from the north to the south to connect new housing developments, the inspector noted. Overall, the harms were significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the benefits, he judged.

Inspector: David Spencer; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-685

Landscape and infrastructure concerns over a proposal for 100 homes on the edge of a town in Rutland have been dismissed.

An inspector allowed the scheme, and awarded the appellant partial costs after ruling that the council had unreasonably opposed the scheme on landscape and infrastructure grounds. The planning application had been accompanied by a landscape and visual assessment which had been independently audited by the council and which had led officers to recommend that permission should be granted. However, the planning committee refused the scheme, partly on the grounds it would urbanise the site.

Another ground for refusal was that the development would add to the existing severe pressure on local services which already failed to meet residents’ expectations and would have a detrimental impact on the wellbeing and quality of life of the proposed residents. The concerns related primarily to the lack of school places, the provision of healthcare at doctor’s surgeries and the provision of leisure facilities.

In examining the proposal, the inspector agreed that the scheme would inevitably cause harm to the area's character and appearance, because it would introduce up to 100 dwellings and associated infrastructure onto what was currently an agricultural field. While he accepted that the impact would be lessened from some views due to topography, vegetation and the visual relationship to the existing settlement, he held that from other viewpoints, there would be a more significant impact. 

However, the inspector held that the proposal offered the potential to provide a better settlement edge than that which existed at the present time. He also noted that the council had approved a scheme for 62 houses on the opposite side of the road which would also have an urbanising impact and extend the settlement boundary beyond its current position.

On the issue of infrastructure impact, the inspector noted the appellant’s evidence submitted with the appeal and presented at the hearing that there was no shortage of school places or capacity at the local doctors' surgeries. He also noted that the council had not presented its own empirical evidence to counter this evidence.

The inspector held that as the council was not able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development applied. In his view, the benefits of boosting housing supply in a sustainable location carried significant weight.

Inspector: Graham Wraight; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-698

A proposal for 58 homes on land allocated for 26 houses on a village-edge site in Hertfordshire has been found not to harm area character.

An inspector held that the uplift in numbers would not harm the area's semi-rural character. The site comprised former horticultural nursery land that was part of a larger site removed from the green belt. The council objected to the scheme as an overdevelopment of the site to the detriment of its semi-rural character.

The inspector did not agree that the number of houses allocated in the plan was an overriding factor. In his view, the proposed layout and density responded to the site’s constraints and opportunities and would provide a suitably designed and very low density scheme in keeping with its surroundings. The council suggested that open space should be excluded from density calculations, but the inspector held that the overall density yardstick was more relevant because it reflected the overall perception of the scheme on the ground. He also noted that the local plan stated that site allocation numbers were intended to be indicative and sought an efficient use of land through a design-led approach.

The inspector also found no evidence to justify the council’s concern that a calculation of 0.96 per cent biodiversity net gain was marginal and would not deliver a net gain in practice.

Inspector: John Longmuir; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-646

Concerns over harm to a culturally significant woodland have ruled out a proposed 55-home scheme in Gloucestershire.

An inspector dismissed the proposed scheme on a site comprising mixed woodland, just outside a village, despite accepting that the council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. 

The inspector noted that the appeal site was planted in 2012 as part of an environmental initiative involving the Woodland Trust to celebrate the diamond jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II. For that reason, she held that the woodland had a cultural significance for the local community. The loss of the central core of the woodland would be highly noticeable and the introduction of the roofscape associated with up to 55 dwellings would be conspicuous and intrusive in the local landscape, she determined. Moreover, the existing established soft edge to the nearby village would be diluted by the development, she held.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had a clear environmental objective to protect and enhance the natural environment and the woodland performed a role in relation to resilience to climate change, the inspector noted. In her view, the cumulative impact of the number and density of young trees made a significant contribution to local character and had good future potential to develop to maturity. It also contributed to the wider green infrastructure network, she concluded, and the landscape and visual impact was therefore of significant concern.

The inspector accepted that the appellants had proposed mitigation in the form of a surrogate site, the planting of which was initially intended as the provision of land to achieve a substantive level of biodiversity net gain (BNG). The appellants also proposed incorporating some public access to that land. However, while accepting that the surrogate site would facilitate BNG in excess of that required, the inspector judged it would not represent an equivalent facility for the local community, even taking into account the undertaking to provide an as yet undefined level of public access. The surrogate site would not represent an equivalent area to the appeal site visually nor in terms of character and appearance, she held.

In relation to a dispute over housing land supply, the inspector decided there was no persuasive evidence to suggest that the council could include within its five-year housing land supply, the delivery of houses on strategic sites intended to meet the housing requirements of adjoining local authorities. Under a joint core strategy, the authorities had agreed to work together in allocating sites within the district which in her opinion meant they could not be used to contribute to the council’s housing land supply. On this basis, she accepted the appellant’s evidence indicating a supply of less than three years. However, even applying the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development, she decided that the harm she had identified significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits.

Inspector: Janet Wilson; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-714

Insufficient evidence of a need has scuppered a scheme for 26 entry-level houses on the edge of an Oxfordshire village.

An inspector noted that paragraph 72 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that entry-level exception sites should deliver housing suitable for first-time buyers or those looking to rent their first home unless the need for such homes is already being met within the authority’s area. The council acknowledged that no such schemes had been delivered in the area in the time that the NPPF provisions had been extant. The council accepted that its development plan policies did not reflect the entry-level exceptions policy requirements, and it confirmed that it did not count the needs for entry-level affordable houses as distinct from the general need for affordable housing either.

However, the inspector found that the council had been proactive in recent years in delivering sufficient development to maintain an adequate five-year housing land supply and meet its annual housing target across the district. The high number of smaller affordable units and those of an affordable rent tenure which had been delivered as a result had inevitably helped to meet a high demand, she held. In her view, it was also evident that the village had materially expanded and received a high proportion of both market and affordable housing, leaving a relatively modest need for affordable homes for those specifically with a connection to the parish. On this basis, there was insufficient evidence of a need for further entry-level homes, she concluded.

The inspector expressed concerns about the design of the proposed scheme. The dwellings themselves would be of a relatively uninspiring suburban character, she held. In her view, despite some differentiation in the orientation of the dwellings, their materials and colour palette, there would be a distinctly repetitive quality to the development. The homogeneity across the dwellings, combined with the high density of the scheme resulting in a cramped appearance, would result in a mediocre quality of design overall which also counted against the scheme, she ruled.

Inspector: Hollie Nicholls; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-664

A greenfield housing scheme was refused after the council was held to be justified in taking account of over-supply of homes in previous years when assessing future need.

In refusing permission for a proposal for 26 homes on the edge of a village in Bedfordshire, the inspector decided it was not unreasonable for the local authority to take into account the over-supply of housing in previous years. 

On the issue of visual impact, the inspector held that the scheme would result in the introduction of a substantial and sprawling extent of new buildings on the edge of the village. From the road, the creation of a new, formal vehicular access together with the new homes, would markedly and deleteriously diminish the delineation between the existing village and the countryside beyond, he held. In his view, it would introduce a form of development that would be at odds with the predominant linear pattern of development within the village.

The inspector also noted that, within the settlement, there were no services other than a pre-school, and residents would therefore be required to travel in order to access services. Thus the majority of new residents would be dependent on the car, he held.

In relation to housing land supply, the council had dealt with the over-supply in previous years by applying it equally over the remaining plan period. If this over-supply were not taken into account, the number of houses required over the period of the plan would be artificially inflated, the inspector held. He therefore held that the council could demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. The tilted balance was not engaged and the impact on the area's character and an increased need for residents to travel by car outweighed the benefits, he concluded.

Inspector: Martin Allen; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-716

A high degree of sustainability in construction is no longer an exceptional benefit which can be used to justify schemes involving policy conflicts, an inspector has ruled.

An inspector ruled that a proposed carbon-neutral home planned in the garden of a house in a West Sussex village did not overcome conflict with the spatial strategy and the site's isolated nature. He noted that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in 2021 did not support new dwellings within the countryside which involved an innovative design. Paragraph 80 of the NPPF deleted "innovative" as a potential justification in itself for ‘isolated homes’ in the countryside, he noted. The remoteness of the appeal site from a settlement rather than other buildings was a description which could reasonably be applied in this instance, the inspector held.

The inspector accepted that the construction of a carbon neutral dwelling was a laudable aim. However, he held that a high degree of sustainability in the method and materials used for construction was not an uncommon argument raised in support of proposals in locations not supported by spatial policies or where the design required particular justification. With measures to mitigate climate change at a high level in national consciousness, in his view, this was likely to be a trend that was likely to continue to gather pace. In his judgement it had already reached a point where such benefits were no longer exceptional.

Inspector: Martin Andrews; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-039-438

Housing conversion

A proposal for the extension of a water tower in Hertfordshire to provide residential use has been found to be inappropriate development in the green belt.

The appeal proposal included an extension of the existing water tower in the form of the infilling of the space beneath the water tank and around its support structure. The proposed external cladding would extend above the height of the water tank to enable the provision of an external roof terrace. Given the absence of existing floorspace, the appellant argued that in this case it would be unreasonable and overtly preventative to use the increase in floor space as a means of measuring the proportionality of any extension. However, the inspector found that even discounting the increased floorspace provided by the upper levels, the proposal included an expansion of the footprint of the water tower beyond the existing support structure at lower levels. 

The footprint of the existing water tower was about 58 square metres, the inspector found, whereas the proposal would have a footprint of 110 square metres. In his view, this represented a substantial increase in the existing building's footprint. Additionally, the existing water tower and ancillary structures had an approximate volume of 381 cubic metres, exclusive of the unenclosed space below the water tank. Including this gave a figure of about 1,000 cubic metres. The proposal would be about 1393 cubic metres in volume. Even when accounting for the existing unenclosed space below the water tank, this represented approximately a 39 per cent increase in volume, the inspector found. 

The inspector accepted that the proposal could be designed to minimise water use, overheating, the need for heating in winter and carbon dioxide emissions, However, he concluded it would have a greater impact on the openness of the green belt than the existing structure and thereby would fail to preserve its openness. The proposal would also harm the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area, he held.

Inspector: Ryan Cowley; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-039-609

Leisure and entertainment

Various structures installed in the grounds of a grade II* listed castle have been held to harm the setting of the building.

An inspector substantially upheld an enforcement notice requiring the structures at the castle and registered garden in Derbyshire to be removed, after concluding that they materially affected its significance. The enforcement notice required a climbing frame, archery and air rifle shooting ranges to be removed along with two landing platforms along a river. In deciding that the majority of the installations required planning permission, the inspector went on to assess their impact on a range of heritage assets.

The building itself stood on an artificially levelled platform that was cut into the rocky hillside, from which the ground dropped sharply towards the riverside meadows that formed the southern section of the park, the inspector noted. A conservation area appraisal described the area as being formed on the inside of a broad meander in the river, and highlighted the importance of the parkland trees. The inspector held that this land was a key element of the listed building's setting, both in views from it and towards it from across the river to the south.

The inspector concluded that apart from the two river landing stages, the rest of the development harmed the landscape, which was not designed to accommodate such structures. In her view, the public benefits of the installations failed to outweigh the significant weight which was attributed to this harm. Accordingly, the notice was upheld apart from the two river landings which were judged acceptable.

Inspector: Elaine Gray; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-039-341

A proposal for 91 holiday caravans on the Kent coast has been held to comply with national flooding policy while coastal defences are in place.

The appellants proposed the static caravans on a coastal area of land currently protected by flood defences. The council had argued that the proposal would be for a new holiday park rather than an extension to an existing one. This, it argued, meant that a broad sequential test would need to be applied to the search for sites in order for the proposal to comply with national flooding policy. But the inspector found that the scale of the proposal was subservient to a neighbouring holiday park and that future guests would be reliant on the communal facilities of its neighbour. As it would be an extension, the search area for sites was therefore reduced to an area within walking distance of the existing holiday park. There were no such preferable sites in the area, so the sequential test was passed, the inspector held.

The site was within Flood Zone 3 and at low risk of flooding, but this was due to coastal flood defences, the inspector noted. Without these defences the site would be at high risk of coastal flooding, especially when considering the impact of climate change, he held. The Environment Agency plan was to maintain these defences until 2055, but after that a transition to “managed realignment” would be made. Given the uncertainty about the flood risk post-2055, the inspector therefore deemed it necessary to take a precautionary approach and grant permission for the proposal only until 2055.

The site was located next to various nature conservation designations, including a Special Protection Area (SPA). In the inspector’s view, the incorporation of an ecological mitigation area, together with a unilateral undertaking ensuring mitigation, meant the scheme would have an acceptable impact on these designations.

Inspector: Malcolm Rivett: Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-642

Mixed development 

The benefits of a mixed-use scheme on a former nursery site in East Sussex have been held to outweigh conflict with the development plan.

An inspector approved the proposed mix of 53 homes and 2,000 square metres of business floorspace on the site of former nursery and poultry sheds. The site was allocated entirely for business uses in a neighbourhood plan. However, the inspector accepted that the appellant’s evidence demonstrated that without the enabling development provided by the residential component, the business element would not be viable on its own and could not be delivered. This, he noted, was because of abnormal development costs due to contaminated land.

The inspector noted that the lack of sustainable travel options and the scale of the proposed housing outside the village settlement boundary put the scheme in conflict with local plan locational policy. However, he also held that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) tilted balance was triggered by a substantial shortfall in housing land supply in the district. 

Carrying out this balancing exercise, he held that the benefits of the scheme included the provision of much needed market and affordable housing, high-quality employment floorspace contributing to reducing out-commuting and the remediation of contaminated land. These, he held, were substantial benefits which would not be delivered without a viable scheme. In his view, they outweighed any adverse impact arising from conflict with the development plan.

Inspector: David Wyborn; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-647

The proposed redevelopment of a vacant retail unit in Cornwall has been held not to be in conflict with a town centre strategy.

The proposal for a mixed-use redevelopment, including 14 flats, on the town centre site, was held to represent a suitable solution given the council’s aspirations for the area. The inspector noted that the council’s key objectives for the area involved consolidating and enhancing the town centre. This included enhancing the quality of the public realm, and creating a pedestrian-friendly, safe and accessible environment in the main streets of the town.

Given the site’s accessibility and the arrangements made for servicing, the inspector rejected concerns that the scheme would harm pedestrian safety or create any severe impacts on the highway network.

The inspector accepted that construction works associated with the proposed development could have an impact on a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) due to the need for scaffolding on the adjacent seashore, works to the sea wall and the introduction of a pontoon from the sea. Resulting effects on the SAC might include the disruption of water flows, disturbance of sea shore habitat and a negative effect on water quality, the inspector noted. Furthermore, the SAC was an important recreational and economic resource and it was likely that occupants of the proposed development would visit them. On this basis, it could not be ruled out that the proposal would have significant effects on the SAC, the inspector found.

However, the appellants had submitted a construction and environmental management plan to mitigate these impacts. The inspector was satisfied that this, along with a financial contribution to off-site works, were sufficient to ensure that the integrity of the SAC was not harmed.

Inspector: S Harrington; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-039-324

The high-quality design of a proposed redevelopment scheme in a north London town centre has been held to outweigh its visual impacts.

The proposal was for a building with a mix of five and six storeys, to house retail on the ground floor, with offices and nine flats on upper floors, on the site of a dilapidated sub-station. The inspector noted that the site was in a highly sustainable location for housing and economic development. She held that the proposed building would read well as containing separate elements with differing heights and subtle variation in design and materiality “to provide articulation, break up the overall mass and make it visually appealing”. 

The other main issues were the effects of the development on the mixed character and appearance of the surrounding area, the setting of a nearby listed art deco underground station and a conservation area. The inspector observed the transitional area lacked a unified character where, in her opinion, the well-designed modern building would appear visually appealing and connected to the town centre in the street scene. 

She also concluded that while the effect of the imposing building, softened by a setback behind retained trees, on the setting of the listed station would be neutral, the introduction of a visible, modern building on the edge of a small-scale verdant conservation area would cause minor harm. There would also be some harm in views out from a publicly accessible urban green space designated as metropolitan open land. 

In the overall planning balance, however, the inspector ruled that despite non-compliance with policy in these respects, the development was not in conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole.

Inspector: Hollie Nicholls; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-709

Transport development

A proposed new car park serving Bristol Airport has been held to undermine efforts to promote more sustainable transport patterns.

An inspector rejected the proposal for an additional 3,100 car parking spaces. He noted that travellers would be transported between the site and the airport via a shuttle service, and that the site would therefore not be a destination but would function as a stopping-off point to and from the airport. 

In the inspector’s view, as a commercial undertaking, the operation of the proposed development would be likely to draw customers away from not only the airport’s car parks but also away from using public transport. Therefore, he held that although part of the journey of customers using the site would be via the proposed shuttle service, this would be a relatively short proportion of most journeys. Therefore, the overall effect of the proposed development would be likely to undermine the airport’s approved strategy for managing surface movements to and from the airport, he determined.

On this basis, the proposal would be likely to lead to a significant over-supply of airport parking, the inspector held. This, in turn, would have the potential to seriously undermine measures designed to increase modal shift to alternatives that do not rely on the private car or at least have less reliance on the car, he judged.

Furthermore, the inspector held that the noise and activity of the operations would undermine the amenity of residents living on a nearby gypsy site, based on World Health Organisation guidelines. Proposed mitigation involving a 6.5 metre-high barrier was not included within the appeal and in any event would have an adverse impact on the outlook of residents, he held.

A final concern related to the impact on protected species, with the inspector determining that insufficient information was available to demonstrate that bats, otters and water voles would not be adversely affected. The inspector also ruled that the appellant’s biodiversity net gain calculation had also been overstated.

Inspector: G Jones; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-663

A proposed access road to serve Edinburgh Airport has been held to be premature in advance of plans for the wider area.

The Scottish Government dismissed the proposal after concluding that it was premature in advance of understanding future plans for the development of land in the west Edinburgh area. The scheme involved constructing a new road and active travel route between the airport’s eastern terminus where the city’s tram line terminates, and a roundabout. The site covered an area of about ten hectares, mostly located within the airport’s operational boundary. It would provide access to some of the airport car parks and a proposed international business gateway.

The airport authority claimed that the scheme accorded with a transport appraisal for the area which supported the provision of two additional arms onto the roundabout as a means of supporting the development of land for a range of uses. However, the Scottish ministers agreed with the reporter that it would not be appropriate to approve one of the two arms in advance of the other.

They therefore judged that the appellant’s approach of leaving the assessment of any traffic and transport effects from other developments to a later date, while seeking detailed approval of a route upon which those other strategically important developments depended, created a risk to the successful and coordinated development of the wider West Edinburgh area. The ministers concluded it would be inappropriate to grant planning permission when the cumulative traffic implications of the proposal and other significant development sites were unknown.

In their view, granting permission for the proposal in advance of a comprehensive masterplan for the entire West Edinburgh area meant there was a risk that it might not provide the optimal solution from a townscape/place making perspective. Consequently, although the proposed development would offer a deliverable solution to an existing problem of road access to the airport and would do so with no significant adverse environmental effects, the appeal was dismissed.

Reporter: David Buylla; Written representations
DCS Number: 200-011-700